----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
What I take from Geertz is a reasonable distinction between naive, camera-like description
(the "thin" kind) and the interpretation of intended meanings ("thick description"). As
such, I don't see how historians of economics could practice anything but the latter. For
a more useful dichotomy we might turn to Rorty's distinction of "historical
reconstruction" from "rational reconstruction": the former as interpretation in the light
of historical context, the latter as interpretation in light of categories that are
current today. Both approaches are valuable, though for different purposes. (Not everyone
will agree with that last statement, of course.)
 
I do have a point in mind here, which goes back to the original question of graduate
school education. Sure, historians will probably be better at "historical reconstruction",
economists at "rational reconstruction." But are we well advised to resort to
institutional enforcement of this division, or even to rule one approach out of bounds in
a given degree program? I happen to be a historian whose tastes run to rational
reconstruction, and I'm grateful that my dissertation committee gave me my head.
Conversely, Donald Winch started out as an economist, but has devoted himself to
historical reconstruction; and I think we can all be grateful that his path was not
blocked by disciplinary boundaries. We all arrive in this subject by circuitous
trajectories, often with an odd lot of skills and interests. Shouldn't we then leave as
many doors open as
possible? 
 
Heath Pearson 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]